When you read several posts above - yes - some do think / feel SC should be free. However, it looks like NO ONE will be free any longer ... whether it be the Model S - the X - or EVEN the 3. From now on ... EVERY one pays. An Update to Our Supercharging Program | Tesla Maybe a hard pill to swallow, for many folks in the U.S. - considering how entitled we often get. So for now, you want free? Buy one used . . . or buy one quick !! The only remaining question will be - how much more will oldies' resale be, seeing that only the oldest get totally free SC anymore. .
I don't mind the supercharging change. I'd rather have it on a per-use basis anyway. And they still give you 400 kWh for free every year, so that occasional road trip shouldn't affect too many Tesla owners.
If you would have got in immediately it would have probably been closer to a year and a half. Later in the queue, or wanting a very base car...then you would be talking 2-3 years.
Already announced - existing owners, Tesla's employees etc get priority - so unless you already got those criteria met - step to the back o' the line Also, recent reveals have been the 3 will get more range than GM Bolts. 75kWh packs max size Tesla Model 3 Capped At 75 kWh, But Will Have More Range Than Chevy Bolt (so if the 3 EPA's at 4 miles per kWh, that'd = 300mile range) , & the 1st production runs of 3's will be rear wheel drive only. .
Um, a 75Wh pack size better have quite a bit more range than a Bolt. Supercharger construction stateside is barely moving, and the year is nearly one-third over.
I don't quite get the connection between the Bolt and not enough superchargers? The supercharger network today is a better long distance option the the Bolt's CCS DC charging. As for range, my guess is the 75kWh pack Model 3 will end up around 260 miles. A bit more, but I'm not sure what you mean by "quite a bit more". Frankly, I'd like the base model to have a range around 150 miles. However, a minimum of 200 is all but guaranteed at this point.
This whole Bolt / Model 3 comparison is really really strange. OK, they both got 4 wheels .... & both are all-electric, & GM rushed its production to market, so it could be crowned the 1st affordable long range ev - good on GM. There still is no M3 on the road - other than the completed test mule fleet cars. Unlike the M.3 though, the Bolt is NOT a purpose-built ev. Its built on a 2011, 2nd Gen Daewoo Aveo frame; Production Details Leak Out On Chevrolet Bolt - Will Share Platform With Sonic which is also a Sonic ... hardly a US manufacturing wonder ... and that's why Bolt's drag CD is so 'average' (or even weak for a plugin). But that's ok ... it is what it is. Its a rather little car, and so 6 foot+ (driver & passenger) front seats will totally cramp rear seating. That's ok too. It's an ok plugin - for what it is, it's better than anybody else's offering .... but folks might as well compare it to ...... what ... Oh! no other affordable ev's ! no wonder .
GM started with a Sonic/Trax/Aveo/Barina platform, but is a far, far cry from simply converted a ICE model like the Focus EV. Platform sharing is the only way to keep cars affordable. If that isn't good enough, then might as well decry the Model X as not being a SUV because it shares a platform with the Model S. GM did with the Bolt what Toyota should have done with the Prime. They replaced the Trax platform's belly that was designed for an exhaust/emission system and traditional AWD with one designed for a BEV battery pack. The criticisms on space and aero are fair, but that is a limit of the subcompact/B class size segments, not of the platform. With a short wheelbase, you are generally trading interior space away for improved aero drag. Targeting the BMW 3 series, the Model 3 is going to be at least a compact/C class in size, and could be larger. I don't see Tesla doing much better with a smaller car than GM did with the Bolt. PS: Is that photo of a Sonic? The Bolt makes use of thinner seat backs to improve rear leg room.
It is a Bolt seat - utilizing a seat back protector. No - I didn't mean to sound damning of using the Daiwoo platform. Many of the components in our Nissan Leaf share stuff with the nissan versa. Sure - keeping costs down motivates manufacturers' re-purposing frames - as well as R&D costs. But it's also about speed - get it to market. The choice of using a Daewoo frame was also about keeping it light. Had GM chosen a more comfortable frame size, like the Cruz, likely the cost & range would take huge hits - making sales take a hit as well. Don't know if many would NOT buy into the notion that the model X is a suv version ... iirc the goal was for sharing ~ ½ the same parts ... & ultimately that % dropped by production. But both designs (skateboard) are definitely purpose designed - strictly used as ev's .... as is the M3. IMO the biggest concern for M3 will be fit/finish issues that have plagued both, but primarily the MX. Hope they get that kind of stuff dialed in. .
Yep, smaller keeps the price down. GM's first BEV was the Spark after all. Then a BEV specific platform(note: GM is claiming the Bolt platform is separate for marketing) would increase price at this point in time.
is it really a money loser if you get to offset the land barge mileage (via carb credits) on the sales of massive Tahoes Denalis, and Suburbans? .
When a company produces a range of products, they will not all make the same in profits. The more profitable stuff supports those with narrower margins. In the car market, the bigger, fancier models traditionally supported the entry level, small, beginner cars. Regulations now make it the high fuel efficient and alternate fuel ones. They further make it possible to sell those cars at a dollar loss on the model by offsetting the higher profit, less fuel efficient models do to their CAFE.
